Coming October 25: PeerSpot Awards will be announced! Learn more

Apache Kafka vs Red Hat JBoss A-MQ for xPaaS comparison

Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
Comparison Buyer's Guide
Executive Summary

We performed a comparison between Apache Kafka and Red Hat JBoss A-MQ for xPaaS based on real PeerSpot user reviews.

Find out in this report how the two Message Queue (MQ) Software solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI.

To learn more, read our detailed Apache Kafka vs. Red Hat JBoss A-MQ for xPaaS report (Updated: September 2022).
634,550 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Featured Review
Quotes From Members
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use.
Here are some excerpts of what they said:
Pros
"All the features of Apache Kafka are valuable, I cannot single out one feature.""Kafka is an open-source tool that's easy to use in our country, and the command line interface is powerful.""It is a useful way to maintain messages and to manage offset from our consumers.""The most valuable feature of Apache Kafka is the clustering which is very easy to scale and we have multiple servers all over our platforms. It has been useful for stability and performance.""valuable features relate to microservices architecture and working on KStream and KSQL DB as a microservices event bus.""Robust and delivers messages quickly.""It is the performance that is really meaningful.""The high availability is valuable. It is robust, and we can rely on it for a huge amount of data."

More Apache Kafka Pros →

"JBoss is easy to use, and we have a good partner here in Tunisia to provide local support."

More Red Hat JBoss A-MQ for xPaaS Pros →

Cons
"The graphical user environment is currently lacking.""The price for the enterprise version is quite high. It would be better to have a lower price.""The repository isn't working very well. It's not user friendly.""The initial setup and deployment could be less complex.""I would like to see an improvement in authentication management.""Pulsar gives more scalability to an even grouping, but Apache Kafka is used more if you want to send something in a time series-based. If this does not matter to you then Pulsar could be more customizable. Apache Kafka is nothing but a streaming system with local storage.""More Windows support, I believe, is one area where it can improve.""Lacks elasticity and the ability to scale down."

More Apache Kafka Cons →

"JBoss could add more automation."

More Red Hat JBoss A-MQ for xPaaS Cons →

Pricing and Cost Advice
  • "The solution is free, it is open-source."
  • "Apache Kafka is free."
  • "The price for the enterprise version is quite high. For on-premise, there is an annual fee, which starts at 60,000 euros, but it is usually higher than 100,000 euros. The cost for a project including the subscription is usually between 100,000 to 200,000 euros. The cost also depends on the level of support. There are two different levels of support."
  • "We use the free version."
  • "This is an open-source version."
  • "It's a bit cheaper compared to other Q applications."
  • "Apache Kafka is an open-sourced solution. There are fees if you want the support, and I would recommend it for enterprises. There are annual subscriptions available."
  • "We are using the free version of Apache Kafka."
  • More Apache Kafka Pricing and Cost Advice →

    Information Not Available
    report
    Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Message Queue (MQ) Software solutions are best for your needs.
    634,550 professionals have used our research since 2012.
    Questions from the Community
    Top Answer:Apache Kafka is open source and can be used for free. It has very good log management and has a way to store the data used for analytics. Apache Kafka is very good if you have a high number of users… more »
    Top Answer:What is the OLAP that you are using? Hosted in Cloud or on-premise?  The target DB should have its tool to extract data.
    Top Answer:The most valuable feature of Apache Kafka is the clustering which is very easy to scale and we have multiple servers all over our platforms. It has been useful for stability and performance.
    Top Answer:JBoss is easy to use, and we have a good partner here in Tunisia to provide local support.
    Top Answer:JBoss could add more automation.
    Top Answer:We have an application-presentation layer, and we use JBoss to communicate with the application layer. The interceptors use Active MQ.
    Ranking
    Views
    19,541
    Comparisons
    15,661
    Reviews
    22
    Average Words per Review
    417
    Rating
    7.8
    Views
    225
    Comparisons
    192
    Reviews
    1
    Average Words per Review
    172
    Rating
    8.0
    Comparisons
    Learn More
    Overview

    Apache Kafka is a distributed streaming platform, with the following capabilities:

    • It lets you publish and subscribe to streams of records. In this respect it is similar to a message queue or enterprise messaging system.
    • It lets you store streams of records in a fault-tolerant way.
    • It lets you process streams of records as they occur.

    Apache Kafka gets used for two broad classes of application:

    • Building real-time streaming data pipelines that reliably get data between systems or applications.
    • Building real-time streaming applications that transform or react to the streams of data.

    To respond to business demands quickly and efficiently, you need a way to integrate the applications and data spread across your enterprise. Red Hat JBoss A-MQ—based on the Apache ActiveMQ open source project—is a flexible, high-performance messaging platform that delivers information reliably, enabling real-time integration and connecting the Internet of Things (IoT).

    Red Hat JBoss A-MQ for xPaaS extends the capabilities to our Platform-as-a-Service (PaaS) solution, Red Hat OpenShift, for messaging services in the cloud.

    Offer
    Learn more about Apache Kafka
    Learn more about Red Hat JBoss A-MQ for xPaaS
    Sample Customers
    Uber, Netflix, Activision, Spotify, Slack, Pinterest
    E*TRADE, CERN, CenturyLink, AECOM, Sabre Holdings
    Top Industries
    REVIEWERS
    Computer Software Company23%
    Retailer15%
    Financial Services Firm15%
    Manufacturing Company12%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Financial Services Firm25%
    Computer Software Company17%
    Comms Service Provider12%
    Government5%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Computer Software Company26%
    Financial Services Firm19%
    Comms Service Provider13%
    Energy/Utilities Company7%
    Company Size
    REVIEWERS
    Small Business35%
    Midsize Enterprise10%
    Large Enterprise55%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business13%
    Midsize Enterprise10%
    Large Enterprise77%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business11%
    Midsize Enterprise6%
    Large Enterprise83%
    Buyer's Guide
    Message Queue (MQ) Software
    September 2022
    Find out what your peers are saying about IBM, Apache, Amazon and others in Message Queue (MQ) Software. Updated: September 2022.
    634,550 professionals have used our research since 2012.

    Apache Kafka is ranked 2nd in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 24 reviews while Red Hat JBoss A-MQ for xPaaS is ranked 12th in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 1 review. Apache Kafka is rated 8.0, while Red Hat JBoss A-MQ for xPaaS is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Apache Kafka writes "Good partition tolerance, message reliability, and API integration ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Red Hat JBoss A-MQ for xPaaS writes "It's scalable and easy to use, and we have local support here in Tunisia". Apache Kafka is most compared with IBM MQ, Amazon SQS, Red Hat AMQ, ActiveMQ and PubSub+ Event Broker, whereas Red Hat JBoss A-MQ for xPaaS is most compared with .

    See our list of best Message Queue (MQ) Software vendors.

    We monitor all Message Queue (MQ) Software reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.